Wondered?

Have you wondered how Christianity became what it is today, given how it started? It didn't start with the religious authorities. It didn't start with the people for whom life was easy. It didn't start with people who were nailing whatever purity system was being handed to them at the time. It started with rank fishermen and prostitutes and tax collectors — people for whom life wasn't easy. And yet that's whom Jesus chose to surround himself with. On the other hand we  avoid those types.

Paul said it is reasonable to believe God exists because of the creation. Apparently everything else has to be based on taking someone's word.

Folks have their reasons for believing whether Christian, Muslim, Hindu, atheist and it appears they take the word of someone they trust.

Many believe that too much education can cause one to lose their faith. What learning does is expose one to the fact others believe differently than they believe and folks see that as dangerous. Based on the reaction a few years ago members of the Church of Christ believe God will torture them in Hell for eternity if they take the communion in the wrong sequence. They believe that because someone they trust told them he will.  

 

Wes Craven, the movie director known for Scream, Nightmare on Elm Street and many other horror movies including a number of x-rated movies died today. He was born in 1939 and grew up in a strict Baptist family. When I heard about it I immediately thought of your issue concerning the youth.

 

He attended Wheaton College, an Evangelical Christian college in Illinois. He said it was while he was at Wheaton he began to rebel against his Christian upbringing.

 

He published a love story about a white woman and a black man and another story about a girl who was not married but was pregnant. The college president banned the magazine and denounced him from the pulpit (as you see neither action was effective).

 

He loved movies despite growing up without them in his life—a byproduct of being raised in a churchgoing family that believed, in his words, "they were the work of the devil." 

 

Your question concerning the the youth is one that Bob Keyser and I have discussed on occasion. When Jimmy Allen was President of Harding University he said between the 7th grade and graduation from college the church loses something like 70% maybe 80% of its youth. Adults are stunned when a good Christian boy or girl leaves the church. I told Bob it didn't surprise me, it was obvious, the church never had them. When the first opportunity came along they got as far away as they could. Bob calls them little atheists. I think he's right.  

 

Wes Craven is an example of an individual who while he was at home, went along with his parents and when he left to attend college, a Christian College at that, his parents and the church patted themselves on their proverbial backs for a great job well done. But alas they were wrong, as are we. Parents can make their children do what they want them to do, they cannot make them think the way they want them to think. That takes relationship and example.

John Jenkins
865-803-8179  cell
Gatlinburg, TN



Email: jrjenki@gmail.com
Blogs: http://littlepigeon.blogspot.com/
         http://alumcave.blogspot.com/

"The good thing about science is it's true whether or not you believe in it."

Neil DeGrasse Tyson

 

Reference June Men's Meeting minutes: you reported the concept/problem of how to get younger age group involved and interested in Bible school and in church was introduced. Not sure what younger age group is being considered but a good number of older local members are likely targets also.

 

The purpose of this email is to suggest you consider the possibility that I am not the only one who does not believe what is taught.

 

All of my life, at least to this point, I have been taught that God answers prayers. I remember as a teenager observing it looked like the only way folks got off the prayer list was to die.

 

I remember asking God for help making decisions guidance etc and I remember never being aware of any responses. For over 40 years I have asked preachers, authors of articles, etc questions relating to things they had said or written and not receiving answers. I used to thank God for our inheritance and asked him to help Foster make sound business decisions. God did nothing, Foster went to prison, we went bankrupt and a 73-year-old grandmother is working at a minimum wage job instead of visiting her grandchildren.

 

During our time at GSMCOC I have noticed public prayers are never answered do not make sense or ask God to do something he has already done or cannot do. I used to ask people what specifically they expected God to do in response to their public prayer. I was told by a respected member of GSMCOC that he did not expect anything. When I asked why he prayed he said he is commanded to so he does. Is God weird or what? 

 

As a result of my experience and observations I have concluded God does not answer prayers and is not involved in our lives. When the opportunity for coincidence is eliminated prayers are never answered. Coincidence comes when prayers are spoken for a sick person and the sick person is medically treated for the sickness. If the person is healed it is impossible to know if God healed, the individual's immune system healed, or the treatment healed.

 

I believe historically as well as currently most of what is taught as Christianity is intended to keep the laity dependent on the clergy. First to get their attention you have to scare them and then comfort them that they will be OK if they listen to you and contribute financially..

 

When the Littleton's asked their grandson be removed from the prayer list Al announced the man will spend the rest of his life in a wheel chair and that "prayer works," whatever that means. Al's comments were an attempt to convince the congregation that God had done something he had not done but that Al had told them God would do. I doubt any prayers were for the man to live in a wheel chair. God did not answer any of those prayers.

 

The reason the younger age group are not involved and are not interested in Bible school and in church may be they do not believe what they hear. You have not convinced me but you have given me reason to doubt a lot of what is taught and God has given me reason to doubt. Paul said it is reasonable to believe God exists because of what we can see in nature. Everything else we believe because we take the word of someone we trust. When people advocate something to be true that is easily verified to not be true the people advocating lose credibility.  

 

When talking with the people you might be alert for indications they reason they are not involved is they just do not believe you or trust you.

John Jenkins
865-803-8179  cell
Gatlinburg, TN



Email: jrjenki@gmail.com
Blogs: http://littlepigeon.blogspot.com/
         http://alumcave.blogspot.com/

"The good thing about science is it's true whether or not you believe in it."

Neil DeGrasse Tyson

Henry Ford

In 1914, Henry Ford made a big announcement that shocked the country. 

 

That morning, Ford would begin paying his employees $5.00 a day, over twice the average wage for automakers in 1914.

In addition, he was reducing the work day from 9 hours to 8 hours, a significant drop from the 60-hour work week that was the standard in American manufacturing.

Ford believed he was buying higher quality work from all his employees. "If the floor sweeper's heart is in his job he can save us five dollars a day by picking up small tools instead of sweeping them out."

Higher wages were necessary, Ford realized, to retain workers who could handle the pressure and the monotony of his assembly line.

In 1919, Ford raised his minimum wage again, this time to $6.00 a day. Ford said "The payment of five dollars a day for an eight-hour day was one of the finest cost-cutting moves we ever made, and the six-dollar-a-day wage is cheaper than the five.

In the aftermath of the stock market crash, he raised wages to $7.00 a day, hoping it would spark an economic recovery. But this time, it didn't work. The fault lay in business leaders who were "continually putting the profit motive over what he called the wage motive." "When business thought only of profit for the owners 'instead of providing goods for all,' then it frequently broke down."

Why is it Worship

On my first job in 1962 I had a grand-boss (my boss's boss) who would come in on Saturday mornings, and perform no work related activities. He would drink coffee, share doughnuts, he had brought, talk to folks, hang around until noon and leave. He did not know what to do on Saturdays until he came home from work. It was a habit. I believe the majority of those assembled on Sunday AM are there for the same reason with the additional perk, they like the people. Some are there because the clergy told them if they do not come that a loving God will burn them in Hell forever. They have to be there; to worship but most importantly to fill the collection plates.

 

Why do you believe the assembly is worship?

 

I will tell you why I do not believe it is worship. Paul told the church in Rome what worship is (it is not isolated to Sunday or to groups) and the writer of Hebrews tells us the purpose of the assembly (it is not worship). Nowhere are we commanded nor told nor is it suggested we worship. Jesus told the woman at the well his people would worship and that there would not be a specific place to worship. The clergy tell us the church building is the place where the clergy is. If no worship what would the clergy do?

 

We like examples and commands and my favorites those necessary inferences; where are they to support considering the assemblies worship?

 

The greatest perceived danger to many church leaders is the idea that their congregants begin to embrace questioning and free thought.

I believe most of what is taught as Christianity has as its primary purpose keeping laity dependent upon clergy. What better way than scaring the laity and telling them the Clergy will help them? Clergy tells the laity a loving God will torture his "very good creation" for eternity in Hell unless they do exactly what the Clergy tells them God commands.

Have you ever wondered why, while Christians, today hold dear the virgin birth of Jesus it was never mentioned by Paul, Peter, James the brother of Jesus or Jesus? Paul said it is reasonable to believe God exists by what can be seen. Apparently everything else depends on taking someone's word. When what Clergy claims to be true can be seen to be not true laity begins to doubt that which cannot be seen.

The greatest perceived danger to many church leaders is the idea that their congregants begin to embrace questioning and free thought.

In the 300's CE, Emperor Constantine and his newly formed Church leadership structure took actions to eradicate – by force when necessary – any Christian thought that did not conform to the creeds they had articulated. Free thought impacted their power and control, both physically and spiritually. That mentality remains today, thus Sunday morning is the most segregated day of the week as Christians assemble with those who think as they think. When everyone thinks alike, someone is not thinking.

If Clergy are to remain relevant they should not ignore Augustine of Hippo's advice.

"In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for teaching of Holy Scripture but our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture"

 

 

The Donald is Right

Which is more sad, a military being killed in his own country or American citizens sending their military to die to promote political goals? If you want to honor the military stop sending them to war.

On the other hand Donald Trump is right, we citizens have allowed our government to forget our military, Projects like Wounded Warriors are proof. When we send military to war we should raise taxes enough to pay as we go, and to take care of any problems the military has for the rest of their lives and we should provide a comfortable living for their families and education for their children. Maybe then we will stop trying to rule the world.

Same-Sex Marriage Temper Tantrums

It seems to me the objections to same-sex marriage are the political equivalent of temper tantrums, attention-getting yet extremely difficult to implement.

 

 

Similar to the result of states refusing to set up health insurance exchanges in accordance with the Affordable Care Act marriage would become the federal government's responsibility. Folks could stand in the corner and hold their breath until they turned blue in the face, they still signed up for Obamacare, but they had given the authority over it to the federal government. Pouting doesn't work.

 

 

Ignoring the fact that no gay couple is going to want someone who deeply opposes their union to consecrate it no civil authority could force a religious institution to perform a ceremony that the institution opposes. That will never happen since it would violate the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution — the part of the First Amendment that protects religious expression.  

 

 

Less obvious is whether that same protection applies to state employees like judges, clerks and justices of the peace who issue marriage licenses as part of their jobs. I doubt they will be protected since what they believe has no relevance to the completion of their official duties.

 

 

Government employees have obligations to perform their job. Rogue county clerks instructed to issue marriage licenses to any couple who asks for one, should be fired for refusing to perform the duties of their job.

 

 

Any couple who wants to have a fight will claim state-sanctioned discrimination. The state will say they're simply protecting the religious liberty of their employees, and the court will say you don't get to elevate employees' religious liberty over other constitutional requirements of their job.

 

 

Supporters of the decision have compared its significance to the landmark 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, and the current pushback by anti-gay marriage states is not unlike that sparked by the court's mandate for desegregation. But while the time and effort involved in creating a whole new desegregated school system actually made it easier for states and cities to drag their feet in implementing the requirements following Brown, the simplicity of legalizing same-sex marriage makes it harder to resist.

 

 

Considering all of the problems this country has, so much energy put into same-marriage is a waste. Besides with their acceptance and tolerance for serial adultery and fornication Christians long ago lost the right to the moral high ground on any topic. Voting for or against an individual based on their stand on same-sex marriage just might explain the situation in which this country finds itself.  

Marriage Has Never Been Traditional

The defenders of traditional marriage are not defending traditional marriage—they are defending their own unique religious version of marriage which is that marriage is a "God-ordained" institution that is between one man and one woman and has been so for all of history. By "God-ordained" they mean the Christian God. The alleged gods of other faiths don't matter.

History is filled with accounts of polygamy. The Bible claims that polygamy was common with people like Esau having two wives; Abraham was married to Sarah and Hagar; David had multiple wives and concubines both, as did Solomon. Marriage has not always been about one man and one woman.  

 

Christians claim marriage has always been between individuals of the opposite sex. 

Remember the Christian emperor of Rome, Theodosius II, well he created a code of Christian law for the Roman Empire which specifically banned same-sex marriage. Why ban something that was never practiced? 

How about the claim that the collapse of Rome came about because it tolerated homosexuality? Rome under Christian rule became more intolerant of homosexuality long before it collapsed. The banning of same-sex marriage was the first step of a series of anti-gay laws.Rome was tolerant of gays during its height and least tolerant before its collapse. Christians were tolerated and ruled Rome during the fall of the empire.

Many claim that marriage was a "divine institution" all along and that the state took control of marriage from the church.

Marriage was neither connected to the church or to the state for much of history. A marriage amounted to two individuals announcing their marriage to friends and family and setting up house. There may have been a "wedding feast" as depicted in the New Testament but there was no church ceremony. Early Christian churches had nothing to do with marriage. They did not perform marriages.

Marriage was considered valid if two individuals merely pledged themselves to one another, regardless if anyone else knew about the matter. Martin Luther wrote marriage was "of the earthly kingdom" and "subject to the prince, not to the Pope."

The state did not take over marriage. First, marriage was entirely private without interference of either church or state. Catholicism exerted control over marriage in 1545. It was the Protestant Reformations that brought in state control of marriage. Protestant leaders invited the state to take control of marriage. John Calvin's 1545 "Marriage Ordinance of Geneva" required a state permit and church consecration before a marriage was recognized. Of course they thought they had control of the state.

Is God Involved?

My experience and observations of over 50 years as well as the current status of the sick at GSMCOC suggests you misinterpret the meaning of the verses in your Newsline article My guess is no one was praying that the Littletons' grandson spend the rest of his life in a wheel chair but you said prayer works. Apparently it does not, although I am told by a friend in Nashville he does find him parking places. Last year or the year before the Vacation Bible school used the story of Daniel in the lions' den. At the promotional meeting the Sunday before the session Mark told the kids that God will always rescue you, if you remain faithful. One day, assuming they remember that comment, their experience and observation will tell them he was wrong. I know people who upon such a discovery left the church.

On the subject of same-sex marriage and our ability to have an impac

On the subject of same-sex marriage and our ability to have an impact my guess is our attitude towards LGBT&Q attending our assemblies is influenced by our understanding and our attitude towards the man in 1 Corinthians 5 who "had his father's wife" as well as concern for our children.

 

Are actively immoral individuals even allowed in our assemblies? Why don't we invite people them and others whom we know don't go to church and have never placed their faith in Jesus?

 

Jesus' first followers couldn't wait to bring their brothers, co-workers, and friends to "come and see" what Jesus and the first century church was up to then? Why do we feel funny inviting anybody at all to "come and see?"  Now imagine if some of those friends are LGBT&Q? Will our church friends judge us for hanging out with this crowd?

 

Paul said they were arrogant. Can we tolerate LGBT&Q in our assemblies and not be proud of our tolerance? Do strangers have to be like us to attend or can those who are different attend and possibly become like us?

Traditional Marriage was never Traditional

The defenders of traditional marriage are not defending traditional marriage—they are defending their own unique religious version of marriage which is that marriage is a "God-ordained" institution that is between one man and one woman and has been so for all of history. By "God-ordained" they mean the Christian God. The alleged gods of other faiths don't matter.

History is filled with accounts of polygamy. The Bible claims that polygamy was common with people like Esau having two wives; Abraham was married to Sarah and Hagar; David had multiple wives and concubines both, as did Solomon. Marriage has not always been about one man and one woman.  

 

Christians claim marriage has always been between individuals of the opposite sex.

Remember the Christian emperor of Rome, Theodosius II, well he created a code of Christian law for the Roman Empire which specifically banned same-sex marriage. Why ban something that was never practiced?

How about the claim that the collapse of Rome came about because it tolerated homosexuality? Rome under Christian rule became more intolerant of homosexuality long before it collapsed. The banning of same-sex marriage was the first step of a series of anti-gay laws. Rome was tolerant of gays during its height and least tolerant before its collapse. Christians were tolerated and ruled Rome during the fall of the empire.

Many claim that marriage was a "divine institution" all along and that the state took control of marriage from the church.

Marriage was neither connected to the church or to the state for much of history. A marriage amounted to two individuals announcing their marriage to friends and family and setting up house. There may have been a "wedding feast" as depicted in the New Testament but there was no church ceremony. Early Christian churches had nothing to do with marriage. They did not perform marriages.

Marriage was considered valid if two individuals merely pledged themselves to one another, regardless if anyone else knew about the matter. Martin Luther wrote marriage was "of the earthly kingdom" and "subject to the prince, not to the Pope."

The state did not take over marriage. First, marriage was entirely private without interference of either church or state. Catholicism exerted control over marriage in 1545. It was the Protestant Reformations that brought in state control of marriage. Protestant leaders invited the state to take control of marriage. John Calvin's 1545 "Marriage Ordinance of Geneva" required a state permit and church consecration before a marriage was recognized. Of course they thought they had control of the state.

It seems to me the objections to same-sex marriage are the political equivalent of temper tantrums, attention-getting yet extremely difficult to implement.

 

 

Similar to the result of states refusing to set up health insurance exchanges in accordance with the Affordable Care Act marriage would become the federal government's responsibility. Folks could stand in the corner and hold their breath until they turned blue in the face, they still signed up for Obamacare, but they had given the authority over it to the federal government. Pouting doesn't work.

 

 

Ignoring the fact that no gay couple is going to want someone who deeply opposes their union to consecrate it no civil authority could force a religious institution to perform a ceremony that the institution opposes. That will never happen since it would violate the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution — the part of the First Amendment that protects religious expression.  

 

 

Less obvious is whether that same protection applies to state employees like judges, clerks and justices of the peace who issue marriage licenses as part of their jobs. I doubt they will be protected since what they believe has no relevance to the completion of their official duties.

 

 

Government employees have obligations to perform their job. Rogue county clerks instructed to issue marriage licenses to any couple who asks for one, should be fired for refusing to perform the duties of their job.

 

 

Any couple who wants to have a fight will claim state-sanctioned discrimination. The state will say they're simply protecting the religious liberty of their employees, and the court will say you don't get to elevate employees' religious liberty over other constitutional requirements of their job.

 

 

Supporters of the decision have compared its significance to the landmark 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, and the current pushback by anti-gay marriage states is not unlike that sparked by the court's mandate for desegregation. But while the time and effort involved in creating a whole new desegregated school system actually made it easier for states and cities to drag their feet in implementing the requirements following Brown, the simplicity of legalizing same-sex marriage makes it harder to resist.

 

 

Considering all of the problems this country has, so much energy put into same-marriage is a waste. Besides with their acceptance and tolerance for serial adultery and fornication Christians long ago lost the right to the moral high ground on any topic. Voting for or against an individual based on their stand on same-sex marriage just might explain the situation in which this country finds itself.  

Why states are required to recognize each other’s marriage certificates

The fight to ban same-sex marriage has always been dead on arrival and if people would understand the Constitution this would not be a surprise.

 

Article !V, Section 1: Look at the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

 

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

 

The clause requires each state to recognize all marriages contracted in all other states in accordance with these other states' laws. That's because the Clause says "full faith and credit shall be given in each state", and $that Congress may prescribe the manner in which such acts/records/proceedings shall be proven and their effect. But it doesn't say that Congress may legislate that they have no effect in other states, or that states can disregard each other's marriage certificates.

 

Congress may require, by general laws, that more than just a marriage certificate/license be presented to prove that marriage was contracted. But it may not legislate that one state can completely disregard other states' marriage certificate. If it were true, a dangerous precedent would be set.

 

By that same logic, the Congress could allow states to:

–        refuse to recognize validly contracted heterosexual marriages from other states, because laws on who is eligible to marry vary state by state (some states allow first cousins to marry, most others do not; some states allow girls under 18 to get married, some others do not);

–        refuse to recognize divorce rulings from other states (e.g. let's say that a state opposes divorce on principle, bans divorce completely, and disregards divorce rulings from other states' courts);

–        – refuse to recognize Drivers Licenses from other states (after all, highway codes and Driver License exams vary from state to state and one state may refuse to recognize your driver license on the grounds that you may not have been tested sufficiently); how would you like not being allowed to drive into KY or VA because your DL is not considered valid there? or moving to VA and having to pass your DL exams all over again?

–         refuse to recognize death certificates from other states; thus, a person who is considered dead in one state may be considered alive in another.

 

These are but a few of the consequences of adopting such interpretation of the Clause. If Congress can allow states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages validly contracted in another state, it can also allow states to disregard these other documents. Such an interpretation assumes that the Clause is internally inconsistent, self-contradictory, and unclear. It is not a good faith interpretation.

John Jenkins
865-803-8179  cell
Gatlinburg, TN



Email: jrjenki@gmail.com
Blogs: http://littlepigeon.blogspot.com/
         http://alumcave.blogspot.com/

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."

Napoleon Bonaparte

Summer MM Questions About Homosexuality

I enjoyed and generally agree with your comments in the Summer MM "Questions About Homosexuality."  

Reference your article in the Summer MM "Questions About Homosexuality;" specifically your comments concerning homosexuality being a choice. 

 

Scientists say chemical reactions create electric circuits which cause various areas of the brain to send messages to the body etc. Do our actions originate in our brain or does the soul in some fashion influence the brain?

 

Consider people infected with the rabies virus. Invisibly small changes inside the brain cause massive changes to behavior. Should the individual be punished for failing to exercise his free-will not to bite?

 

Then there is the case in 2002, a 40-year old male school teacher began to view child pornography websites, and soliciting prostitutes at massage parlors, activities which there are no accounts of him having done in the past. The man's wife turned him into the police when he was found making subtle sexual advances towards young children.

 

He was found guilty of child molestation and medicated for pedophilia. He was given an ultimatum; he could either pass a 12-step Sexaholics Anonymous rehabilitation program or face jail time. He chose the former but was expelled after asking the ladies in the program for sex. 

 

The evening before his prison sentencing, he took himself to a hospital, complaining that he had a massive headache and would "rape his landlady." An MRI revealed an egg-sized brain tumor located in the right lobe of the orbifrontal cortex, which is tied to judgment, impulse control and social behavior. 

 

Once the tumor was removed, his sex-obsession disappeared.

 

After he was remanded to psychiatric care, he complained of balance problems and a MRI scan revealed an egg-sized brain tumor. Further tests found the man was also unable to write or copy drawings and was unconcerned when he urinated on himself.

 

But seven months after the tumor was removed, and after successfully completing the Sexaholics Anonymous program, the man returned home. In October 2001 he complained of headaches and secretly collected pornography once more. But after a MRI scan revealed tumor regrowth and it was removed, the behavior again disappeared.

 

Should he be punished for failing to use his free will to make better choices?

 

I am not excusing homosexuality only the possibility that something within the brain could be overriding free choice. In a subsequent email I will pose the question if government was not involved and benefits to "the married" were not provided by the government and other social institutions would anyone care who commits their life to another? 

 

John Jenkins
865-803-8179  cell
Gatlinburg, TN



Email: jrjenki@gmail.com
Blogs: http://littlepigeon.blogspot.com/
         http://alumcave.blogspot.com/

"A penguin walks through that door right now wearing a sombrero. What does he say and why is he here?"

Fwd:

John Jenkins
865-803-8179  cell
Gatlinburg, TN



Email: jrjenki@gmail.com
Blogs: http://littlepigeon.blogspot.com/
         http://alumcave.blogspot.com/

"A penguin walks through that door right now wearing a sombrero. What does he say and why is he here?"

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: John Jenkins <jrjenki@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 8:14 AM
Subject:
To: Rick Cliett <rickcliett@hotmail.com>

One of the positive things about religion is we all can believe whatever we like and be comfortable. And, I realize I see things a little different than others, I tend to think literally and I like to consider the ramifications of beliefs and for what is said.

 

Early Christian preachers did not want the laity to have a copy of the bible in their own language. The clergy wanted to be the sole source and they could tell the people what to believe. One of the best ways to keep the attention of the laity is to scare them. Most of what is taught as Christianity is intended to keep the laity dependent upon the clergy.

 

Folks fall back on "God's Will" when their prayers are not answered. While the clergy assures them God does answer their prayers when it appears he does not obviously it is "His Will" being done. I take my personal experience and observations over the clergy any day and do not believe God answers prayers today. Does God hate amputees, people with autism or Downs syndrome, or those who are mentally or physically disfigured?   

 

Recently I read in the Christian Chronicle that God says "No" because he has something better in mind. Someone should tell that to the parents of a three-year-old girl who was kidnapped, raped, tortured and killed. I doubt being told their child's death was "God's Will" would be very consoling.  Did you know in the Sex Trafficking trade there is a market for 3yr-to-7-yr-old girls and boys?

 

We are told not everyone will be saved. Certainly it is not God's will that people be lost. While God has his preferences I do not believe he exercises them today.

 

As we pray without thinking so do we sing;

 

Tonight we sang about "our raptured souls, can here no longer stay" but we say we do not believe in the "rapture."

 

Another song was about our satisfaction with "just a cottage below, a little silver and a little gold; but in that city where the ransomed will shine, we want a gold one that's silver-lined." I find that ludicrous. I want the gold and silver here and am more than willing to take a shack in heaven. I chuckle when that song is sung, Christians telling God what Heaven means to them and what they expect.

 

Our last song which was written with 8 stanzas with number 5 saying: "comfort every sufferer watching late in pain; those who plan some evil from their sin restrain." God will not do either. He cannot. For him to refrain anyone from evil requires his taking away their free will and I see nothing in the Bible that suggests he will do that.

 

Many years ago Tom Holland, a preacher/song leader wrote a book Appropriate Songs at Inappropriate Times. He told the story of a cruise he and some of the members of his congregation took. They met each day for bible study and singing. The first song on the first day was

Living below in this old sinful world
Hardly a comfort can afford
Striving alone to face temptations call
where could I go but to the Lord

He said he laughed when he thought of a group, on a cruise with all sorts of luxury, singing "hardly a comfort can afford."

No reply is necessary.  We all will continue to believe what provides comfort as do the Muslims, Hindus, Atheists and Christians of all ilks.

 

 

John Jenkins
865-803-8179  cell
Gatlinburg, TN



Email: jrjenki@gmail.com
Blogs: http://littlepigeon.blogspot.com/
         http://alumcave.blogspot.com/

"A penguin walks through that door right now wearing a sombrero. What does he say and why is he here?"

 

In 1610 when Galileo Galliei observed the four largest moons of Jupiter he disproved the belief that the entire universe revolves around the earth as well as the belief the earth was the center of the creation.

 

At the time, most philosophers and astronomers believed the Earth stood motionless at the centre of the universe. Astronomers, philosophers and clerics believed the Sun was at the centre of the universe. Subsequent investigations led to the Catholic Church condemning Galileo’s observations as "false" and "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture."

 

Galileo was warned to abandon his discovery. He was eventually tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy", and spent the remaining nine years of his life under house arrest.

 

Today, Christians accepting evolution experience the same objections. As the discovery that the earth is not the center of creation is accepted by Christians so will be that mankind is not either. The bible does not change but our understanding of it does, like it or not truth will prevail.

 

Your enemy is not science it is certainty.

John Jenkins
865-803-8179  cell
Gatlinburg, TN



Email: jrjenki@gmail.com
Blogs: http://littlepigeon.blogspot.com/
         http://alumcave.blogspot.com/

"A penguin walks through that door right now wearing a sombrero. What does he say and why is he here?"

Prayer..Superstition

Among the reasons I do not believe God answers prayer and that he is not active in our lives is the terms used to reference prayer. We teach God is a loving God but look at the terms we use: 

 

Pray fervently

Pray hard

Prayer works

 

The first two some how describe how to pray. The last suggests the act of praying is enough and that God does not have to do anything. What we teach keeps the laity looking to the clergy for help. They pray for us. We need them.  

 

We also teach that God knows what we need before we ask. If he does, why doesn’t he provide it without our having to ask? If you see a friend needing help and refuse to do anything before he asks would you be a friend. If you required that he ask several times before you helped would you be a friend? If you required groups to request on his behalf would you be a friend? You would not but that is how we describe God.

 

Prayer is more superstition than it is a belief. Superstition is the belief in supernatural causality---that one even causes another without any natural process linking the two events—such as astrology, religion, omens, witchcraft, prophecies, etc., that contradicts natural science.

 

The word superstition is sometimes used to refer to religious practices (e.g., Voodoo) other than the one prevailing in a given society (e.g., Christianity in western culture), although the prevailing religion may contain just as many superstitious beliefs.

 

I don’t expect anyone to agree. I have no doubt I am right because I can see the lack of results from prayer and I know others agree because of the things they do not pray for. They know God does not answer prayer but they are afraid admitting it somehow is no right. Believing what is not true and expecting what is not going to be is what is not right.

 

 

 

 Paul said nature makes believing there is a God reasonable. What makes it reasonable to believe Jesus is the Son of God? I have long believed much of what is taught as Christianity is intended to keep the laity dependent upon the clergy.Without some corroborating evidence is it reasonable that if a person fails to believe another human that Jesus is God's son they will be tortured for eternity? There must be more than taking the word of a person.    

Marriage is no longer bound to antiquated gender roles

One reason given for opposing same-sex marriage is that for thousands of years not single society supported marriage equality, and that somehow exempted same-sex couples from the Constitution’s promise of equal protection of the law.

 

Same-sex couples wouldn’t be asking for this relief if the law of marriage was what it was a thousand years ago. It wasn’t possible. Same-sex unions would not have opted into the pattern of marriage, which was a relationship, a dominant and a subordinate relationship. Yes, it was marriage between a man and a woman, but the man decided where the couple would be live; it was her obligation to follow him.

 

There was a change in the institution of marriage to make it egalitarian when it wasn’t egalitarian where both spouses work and take care of the house and that the relationship is built on equal power. Same-sex unions wouldn’t fit into what marriage was once.

 

Until surprisingly recently, the legal institution of marriage was defined in terms of gender roles. Common law principles we inherited from our former colonial rulers, “the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband; under whose wing, protection and cover, she performs everything.” As late as 1887, fully one third of the states did not permit women to control their earnings. And married women could not even withhold consent to sex with their husband until recently.

 

Under the common law, “by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given herself up in this kind unto her husband,” and this consent was something “she cannot retract.” The first successful prosecution in the United States of a husband who raped his wife did not occur until the late 1970s.

 

American marriage law presumed that the wife was both financially and sexually subservient to the husband. In a world where marriage is defined as a union between a dominant man and a submissive woman, each fulfilling unique gender roles, the case for marriage discrimination is clear. How can both the dominant male role and the submissive female role be carried out in a marital union if the union does not include one man and one woman? This is why marriage was understood to exclude same-sex couples for so many centuries.

 

But marriage is no longer bound to antiquated gender roles. And when those gender roles are removed, the case for marriage discrimination breaks down.

 

A Train in Winter

The book A Train in Winter is the story of 230 women in the French Resistance during WWII. They were captured individually or in small groups but left Paris together by train in January 1943 destined for Auschwitz. Forty-nine came home at the end of the war--- an astonishing number given the death rate in Auschwitz.  The youngest was a school girl of fifteen, the oldest a farmer’s wife of sixty-eight. They were teachers, biochemists, sales girls, secretaries, housewives and universities lecturers. The book is about who they were,  why they joined the Resistance, how they were caught and mistreated by the French police, the Gestapo, their journey to Auschwitz and their daily life in the death camps, and about what return to France was like for he forty-nine survivors.

 

How they were received at home was surprising to me. Most never said anything to their families or anyone because 1) they were not believed and were thought to be exaggerating, because if it had been as bad as they said they would not have survived besides people don’t treat other people like that; or 2) the families did not want to hear the stories because it made the families sad that their loved on had gone through such a thing.

 

David and Jonathan

Many years ago someone told me how they decided whether to use “I” or “me” in a sentence i.e. “”Don and “?” went fishing.” The suggestion was to remove the “Don” and see which sounded right: i.e. “I” went fishing? Or “Me” went fishing.” I have often used the principal of that suggestion.

In the story of David and Jonathan if you exchanged Miriam for Jonathan would you argue the relationship was as platonic as you believe the relationship between David and Jonathan was? I have never heard a heterosexual man say he loved a male friend more than his wife and I know what I will wonder if I ever do. 

There may be many reasons to believe the relationship was platonic but I doubt those verses would convince folks who thought otherwise.

John Jenkins
865-803-8179  cell
Gatlinburg, TN



Email: jrjenki@gmail.com
Blogs: http://littlepigeon.blogspot.com/
         http://alumcave.blogspot.com/

 

“Everything happens for a reason and that reason is usually physics."

Climate Change

In your comments concerning  theories science develops I missed the part where the church understood the bible to say the earth stood still and had several verses to support their position. They did not rely on science for their belief.

 

To the ordinary people it looked like the sun appeared to go around the earth; and if the earth moves, why aren't we thrown off into space? Why does a stone, thrown straight up into the air, come straight down and if the earth rotating rapidly why don't we feel a strong wind blowing in our faces in the opposite direction to our motion? Surely the idea that the earth moved is absurd?

 

In the January 2010 issue of Smithsonian magazine there is an article about the Dead Sea scrolls. The article says the thousands of tourists who flock to Qumran each year, where the scrolls were discovered, are told the site was once home to a Jewish sect called the Essenes, who devoted their lives to writing and preserving sacred texts. An Israeli archaeologist disagrees, and says the settlement was originally a small fort that was later converted into a pottery factory to serve nearby towns. Which story sounds better to the tourists? Do they want to know the truth or do they want to continue to believe what they want to believe even if it might be false?

 

Does John Casey suggest and explanation as to why glaciers and ice sheets are melting faster today than ever before and that cruise ships are able to come across the northern routes later in the year than ever before?

 

I give Science the benefit of the doubt because thousands of scientists in all fields are trying to prove current theories to be mistaken and if they can they will make their career. Where as Christians seldom question and my experiences and observations tell me a lot of what they teach is not true. I believe there is a good possibility that one day Christians will look back on the idea that anyone thought Genesis 1 and 2 to be historically and scientifically correct to be as silly as we think the people were who thought the earth stood still.

 

 

United States Screwed Up

There have been several Arabic officials over the years that have said as bad as people like Saddam Hussein are, they are the types of iron fisted leaders that are actually needed in the region to keep it stable. Without them, it's a splintered huge group of violent minorities that will pop up and challenge. I think we are seeing all of this play out right now. Every country that we have assisted in the toppling or weakening of it's supposed brutal dictator is in far worse shape now than it was before.

The Foolish, Historically Illiterate, Incredible Response to Obama's Prayer Breakfast Speech

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/the-foolish-historically-illiterate-incredible-response-to-obamas-prayer-breakfast-speech/385246/#disqus_thread

Barack Obama 2002

The following is a transcript of the remarks then-Sen. Barack Obama delivered in Chicago on Oct. 2, 2002. In his speech, Obama said that what he was opposed to was "a dumb war ... a rash war." He said the war was a "cynical attempt" to shove "ideological agendas down our throats" and would distract from domestic problems such as poverty and health care.

 

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars.

After Sept. 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with bin Laden and al-Qaida, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure that the U.N. inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair. The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not — we will not — travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

For all Barack Obama antagonists, which what specifically do you disagree? 

The Pulpit is not in the Pattern

The term “pulpit” is not found in the New Testament. The practice of preaching sermons from the pulpit is, from all indications, a tradition that developed over time. During the first couple of centuries AD, believers would often meet in homes. The first reference to a pulpit does not appear until a letter in the third century AD. 

 

During the Middle Ages, pulpits became commonplace, but were not typically used much for sermons because the sacraments were more important to the Catholic Church. The preaching of the Word at the pulpit became more important with denominations after the Protestant Reformation. Since then, the authority of Scripture, the church, and the preacher became closely connected with the pulpit.

 

For people who believe there is a pattern for Christianity, the pulpit is not one.

Newsline Feb 01

First, I hope you are feeling better.

In your Newsline article you struck a nerve:

We are told the reason why we should not neglect to meet together and that is we are to consider how to stir up one another to love and good works. Does our assembly do that? I say it does not. I see no place in the New Testament where it says the purpose of the assembly on the first day of the week is to worship. Paul told the church in Rome they were to offer their bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—which was their true and proper worship.

 

While a church should ensure that its services (did the first Christians attend "services?")  are reasonably organized, it is not biblical for a church service to be so structured that it prevents participation and freedom. I see no place in the New Testament that supports our style of preaching. It appears people asked Jesus questions as they did Paul and possibly others. As I have mentioned before you have no idea who agrees with you and who does not. That means you have no idea if you have successfully explained your reasons or if you have not.  While in the past you have said Christians need the church it is apparent you have not been convincing in your arguments. 

The idea that a Christian can unenthusiastically sing a few songs, listen to rote prayers, inattentively listen to a sermon, eat the smallest piece of bread they can find and drink a minimal amount of juice, and reluctantly give an offering – and thereby fulfill his/her role in the church – is completely unbiblical. The church is intended to be a place of healthy fellowship, active participation, and mutual edification.  

The Bible clearly shows that God’s Word is to be taught. One problem is that churches fall into the trap of one man being the sole teacher. The lack of opportunities for others to teach and/or the lack of willingness to teach can be a problem. One of the goals of the church is to make disciples, not pew-warmers. Churches should be encouraging and training individuals to teach. 

 

There is no “house of the Lord” today. Making such a statement today encourages people to think of the building as sacred.  For the first few hundred years church buildings were very rare. It was not until Constantine and succeeding Roman Emperors made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire that Christians began to build temples.  The Bible neither encourages nor discourages the idea of Christians meeting in buildings that are specifically designed for corporate worship.  I see nothing in the New Testament that justifies pilfering the collection intended for the poor saints in Jerusalem to buy buildings, pay preachers etc. Considering we claim to follow commands, examples and “necessary inferences” we do take license. We may disagree when it comes to kitchens and pianos but we agree that we all like our buildings.

 

I like your disturbing statistics. When I read those statistics years ago I was surprised. Up to that point I had thought the mother had more influence than the father and I was wrong.

 

And as I have mentioned before church to this congregation is 5 lectures a week looking at the back of the head of the people in front of them and that is not how it should be. Look at our classes. Nothing is expected of the “students” and nothing is what we get.  I love it when the teacher says, “time is up are there any questions or comments.” I call that a joke.  

 

I see no reason to believe attendance will change without other changes occurring first.

 

 

 

John Jenkins
865-803-8179  cell
Gatlinburg, TN



Email: jrjenki@gmail.com
Blogs: http://littlepigeon.blogspot.com/
         http://alumcave.blogspot.com/

 

“Everything happens for a reason and that reason is usually physics."

Knowing Why We Believe

An article in the recent House to House mentions that the Bible does not present a defense of the existence of a Supreme Being but assumes men will know God is and gives Psalm 14:1 as well as several other verses as support.

 

I understand how nature is evidence of the existence of a Creator. To the unbeliever the Bible is not evidence and they view the Bible much like Christians view the Koran and the way Atheists view both Bible and Koran. If it is reasonable to believe there is a creator based on what is seen what similarly points folks to Jesus? One of the reasons the church loses its youth may be that neither they nor their teachers know why they believe what they believe.

 

For most of us acceptance of a truth depends on our perception of the person telling us that truth. If we trust the person we accept if we do not we reject. Truth has little to do with which we choose. 

John Jenkins
865-803-8179  cell
Gatlinburg, TN



Email: jrjenki@gmail.com
Blogs: http://littlepigeon.blogspot.com/
         http://alumcave.blogspot.com/

 

“Having spent considerable time with good people, I can understand why Jesus liked to be with tax collectors and reprobate sinners."

Mark Twain

Get Off the President's Back

The way our government works is the President has very little authority but a lot of influence. Pres Obama has done nothing that Congress did not allow. Checks and balances provide that Congress can stop the president from doing anything. They can pass laws vetoing his Executive Orders. They can override any of his vetoes. People who do not like Obamacare should be mad at the Republicans. They thought that by no participating they could stop Obamacare. They were wrong. Now they can vote to eliminate Obamacare but they will have to replace it with MitchOconnelcare. The best thing coming out of the SOTU was his challenge to both parties to work together, argue, fight but not demonize the opposition.

Are Homosexual Relationships Mentioned in the Bible?

 

It is sometimes said that the friendship between David and Jonathan was an example of a homosexual relationship. The relationships between Ruth and Naomi and between Jesus and John ("the disciple Jesus loved")are also mentioned.

 

In modern Western culture we associate touching, kissing and the word "love" with a sexual relationship. But that was not the case in Biblical era culture. Most Bible scholars say these relationships were no more than close friendships. That is especially clear in the case of Jesus and John - the word translated as "loved" was the Greek word agape, which means kindness and respect rather than romantic or sexual love.

 

There is no mention of same-sex marriages or partnerships in the Bible, either for or against.

 

Some Christians are strongly opposed to legalizing what they view as sinful behavior and a perversion of God's plan for marriage and distinct gender roles. Other Christians view equal civil rights for gays and lesbians as a requirement of Bible teachings that we must act with kindness and respect for all people and avoid judging the moral choices others make.

 

The only mentions of qualifications for clergy are in 1st Timothy and homosexuality is not mentioned there. All of us, including clergy, are imperfect and sinners in our own ways. The question seems to be whether homosexuality should disqualify a person from ministry while other sins (e.g., evil thoughts, greed, deceit, envy, arrogance and folly do not disqualify a person. There are obviously different opinions.

 

We need to leave the decision who gets to heaven to God. The bible teaches that we should not condemn other people or presume to know who will or will not be saved. We are all sinners in our own ways, and none of us can claim to be worthy of heaven on our own merit. We all must depend on God's love, mercy and forgiveness for our salvation.